Leveling assumptions then and now

[Janx]

I always got the sense that "old skool" gaming was as RC just described.

Players showed up at the GMs house, and entered the dungeon.

the plot was "we want to find loot"

The challenge was very nearly players vs. DM, as the DM represented the dungeon and its puzzles.

Continuity was "whatever happened last time still applies". But since not a lot of focus was spent on "what happens outside the dungeon" there wasn't a lot going on in the world.

Running a game in this fashion would make it easier to handle shifting headcount (players missing sessions, new players). It would make it easier to deal with impromptu sessions (let me dig out my dungeon notes, ok, you guys left off here...what do you do next?)

I suspect that the campaign style changed when the stories moved out of the dungeon crawl. Once you start going to places, and then meeting and dealing with NPCs that aren't all hostile, you start running into other kinds of plots. And that further shifts players from PC vs. dungeon to PC vs. the campaign world, which can have a lot of variety of interpretation.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Once you start going to places, and then meeting and dealing with NPCs that aren't all hostile, you start running into other kinds of plots.

Do you mean like the Keep in B2?

There are articles on the creation and running of towns and wilderness areas in The Strategic Review!

RC

 

[Janx]

Do you mean like the Keep in B2?

There are articles on the creation and running of towns and wilderness areas in The Strategic Review!

RC

sure.

I never "played" 1e, though my first PC was a 1e half-elf Fighter-Thief (because we got the wrong edition book when we mail-ordered 2e).

My main description is what I consider the "stereotype" of classic dungeon crawling. From reading various Gary articles, it sure sounded like the bulk of his game was "go back into the dungeon under Greyhawk and get more stuff"

But obviously, if this WAS the start of D&D, it was shifting even in those early days.

 

[Raven Crowking]

But obviously, if this WAS the start of D&D, it was shifting even in those early days.

Or, the stereotype was simply wrong.


RC

 

[Dausuul]

You know, I've been playing D&D for 22 years, and I'm not sure I've ever played in a campaign that was just straight-up dungeon crawling. The closest I can recall was playing Keep on the Shadowfell, and that campaign morphed into a zombie apocalypse once we'd finished up the prefab adventure.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

If you look at the earliest material, it's pretty clear that the game was "more than the dungeon" right from the beginning. The dungeon was important, but it wasn't all there was.

Arneson's First Fantasy Campaign, which includes his Blackmoor dungeons, is full of material on the terrain, castle, town, and political divisions outside the dungeon. In fact, you can see the strong wargaming influence, since the various sides have orders of battle, complete with troop strengths, seasonal incomes, et cetera.

The original D&D rules are jam-packed with information relating to wilderness adventures and the campaign, as well as information on the "underworld" (i.e. the dungeon). Gygax includes all the same sort of information that is evident in First Fantasy Campaign: upkeep costs, prices for construction, troop and hireling prices, barony management, aerial combat, naval combat, et cetera. Again, pointing to a dynamic campaign and defined campaign that includes, but is not limited to, the dungeon.

Re: B1

Just as a point of comparison, the first level of my Cromlech Tor dungeon has around 100 numbered areas: so the first level is twice the size of the first two levels of B1. I'm developing Cromlech Tor according to the basic plan and philosophy described here.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I
Imo, in 1E/2E, reaching about 10th level was the assumed ending of the game. I know that will cause some arguments but very little changed in 1E/2E at higher levels.

I'm not sure why you think that. OD&D + Greyhawk had spells and foes for up to 18th level PCs, AD&D certainly had spell charts all the way up to 20th level. Anyone with spells got more spells and higher level spells. Everyone got More Awesome magic items. Everyone was fighting More Awesome foes.

We played games up to 20th level (and beyond).

I've never known anyone offline who assumed that 'name' level was the end of the game. Ever. Game magazines from the 70's and 80's never assumed that either.

Cheers

 

[Plane Sailing]

- levelling in some cases was a mere side effect of play rather than the focus

Certainly in all the games I played and run back in 1e and earlier days this was the case. Levelling happened infrequently and was a side effect of playing the game, enjoying the adventure.

In retrospect I preferred those days, although I recognise that I'm probably way different from the majority!

 

[Lanefan]

I've never known anyone offline who assumed that 'name' level was the end of the game. Ever. Game magazines from the 70's and 80's never assumed that either.

I don't assume it, but in my own experience it tends to happen that way.

Of the three long (10+ years) 1e-style campaigns I've played in or DMed, one sank around 8-9th level*, one sank around 9-10th level*, and one sank around 10-11th level*; and in that order. I'm hoping my current campaign can get to 12th!
* - approximate party level average. Some individual characters got a bit higher.

The two of those I ran sank for different reasons. The first one I'd plain got tired of, and the rules by then needed a pretty big overhaul. The second one was still quite viable, but I just ran out of good ideas as to what to run.

Lanefan

 

[Plane Sailing]

It's interesting to hear that is your experiences. I wonder whether it is connected to the idea of running distinct 'campaigns'?

In those days all the gamers I played with had a 'stable' of characters, of various classes and various levels, who would be brought out for a game or a series of games; normally in the same campaign world, sometimes being run by different DMs. One of the results of this was that nobody got 'stale' playing the same character all the time.

It may have been a contributory factor to the relative longevity of characters, as against campaigns.

Cheers